Sample Presentation
IBM 3302, Cal Poly Pomona
2024-11-29
data-modified: 2024-11-29
W14-2: 12/27/2024
| ID | Name | Label | Values | Value Labels |
| 1 | q3 | Employees are Courteous | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 2 | q4 | Employees are helpful | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 3 | q5 | Employees are professional | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 4 | q6 | Employees are available | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 5 | q7 | savings rates | 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Very High High Average Low Very Low No Opinion |
| 6 | q8 | statement frequency | 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Very High High Average Low Very Low No Opinion |
| 7 | q9 | statement frequency | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Too Often Very Often About Right Not Often Enough Never |
| 8 | q10 | statement accuracy | 1 2 3 4 |
Excellent Good Fair Poor |
| 9 | q11 | statement understandable | 1 2 |
Yes No |
| 10 | q12 | Account Confidential | 1 2 |
Yes No |
| 11 | q13 | regular share account | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 12 | q14 | special subaccounts | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 13 | q15 | Christmas club account | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 14 | q16 | IRA | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 15 | q17 | Master credit card | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 16 | q18 | signature loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 17 | q19 | new car loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 18 | q20 | late model car loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 19 | q21 | older model car loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 20 | q22 | household goods loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 21 | q23 | recreational loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 22 | q24 | share collateralized loan | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 23 | q25 | IRA loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 24 | q26 | line of credit loans | 1 2 |
Aware and Have Used Aware but Have Not Used |
| 25 | q27 | currently have loan | 1 2 |
Yes No |
| 26 | q30 | CU rates lower | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 27 | q31 | CU confidential | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 28 | q32 | CU is prompt | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 29 | q33 | CU meets needs of members | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 30 | q34 | CU loan applications simple | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree |
| 31 | q37 | overall rating | 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor No Opinion |
| 32 | overall_employee_performace | range: 2.8-5.0 | ||
| 33 | q38 | headquarter | 1 2 |
yes no |
| 34 | employeeperformance | range: 2.8-5.0 | ||
| 35 | at_emp | range: 2.8-5.0 | ||
| 36 | q7r | Savings rates | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Very Low Low Average High Very High |
| 37 | q8r | Fund borrowing rates | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Very Low Low Average High Very High |
| 38 | q9r | Statement Frequency | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Never Not Often Enough About Right Very Often Too Often |
| 39 | q10r | Statement Accuracy | 1 2 3 4 |
Poor Fair Good Excellent |
| 40 | q13r | Regular share account | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 41 | q14r | Special subaccounts | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 42 | q15r | Christmas club account | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 43 | q16r | IRA | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 44 | q17r | Master credit card | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 45 | q18r | Signature loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 46 | q19r | New car loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 47 | q20r | Late model car loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 48 | q21r | Older model car loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 49 | q22r | Household goods loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 50 | q23r | Recreational loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 51 | q24r | Share collateralized loan | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 52 | q25r | IRA loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 53 | q26r | Line of credit loans | 1 2 3 |
Unaware Aware but Have Not Used Aware and Have Used |
| 54 | q37r | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent |
|
R1: Why do people join the Credit Union?
R2: Why do members use other financial institutions when they need to borrow funds?
R3: What are the members’ attitudes and beliefs about the proficiencies of credit union employees?
R4: Are there any perceived differences on attitude towards employee proficiencies, awareness of services, and operational effectiveness between members who live in the area of the firm’s headquarters and members who live elsewhere?
R5: How well are the members aware of the services offered by the credit union?
R6: What are the members’ attitudes and beliefs about how effectively the credit union is operated?
H1: Members’ awareness of the regular share accounts will influence their opinions on the adequacy of financial services in meeting members’ needs.
H2: Members will not be different in their opinion on CU’s loan rate (Q8r) and the degree to which they agree that CU’s loan rate is lower than competitors (Q30).
H3a: There will be interaction effect between the current loan use and location of residence on adequacy of current financial services such that in headquarter area, members who have a loan will agree, more than those who don’t have, that financial services meet the members’ needs, while in outside headquarter area, loan status doesn’t influence adequacy of financial services in meeting member needs.
H3b: Test H2a controlling for the impact of attitudes toward employee proficiency.
H4: Compared with the members who have a loan, those members who don’t have a loan currently with the Credit Union will feel that that CU charges them with higher rates, and that they will agree less with the statement that CU’s loan rates are lower than those offered by other institutions.
H5a: Member belief about CU keeps personal financial information confidential will positively influence the overall attitude toward credit union’s operational efficiency.
H5b: Loan application processing promptness will positively influence the overall attitude toward credit union’s operational efficiency.
H5c: Member satisfaction with level of financial services in meeting needs will positively influence the overall attitude toward credit union’s operational efficiency.
H5d: Loan application simplicity and easiness will positively influence the overall attitude toward credit union’s operational efficiency.
R1: Why do people join the Credit Union?
# A tibble: 5 × 3
q7r n percent
<dbl+lbl> <int> <dbl>
1 1 [Very Low] 1 0.00781
2 2 [Low] 12 0.0938
3 3 [Average] 83 0.648
4 4 [High] 22 0.172
5 NA 10 0.0781
vars n mean sd median trimmed mad min max range skew kurtosis se
X1 1 118 3.07 0.57 3 3.07 0 1 4 3 -0.26 1.18 0.05
W15-1: 12/2/2024
One Sample t-test
data: q7r
t = 1.3016, df = 117, p-value = 0.1956
alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 3
95 percent confidence interval:
2.964639 3.170954
sample estimates:
mean of x
3.067797
Insights about R1
65%) think that the savings rate the CU offers is average.sample mean is 3.07, which is not statistically different from 3 (“average”) (p > .10).R2: Why do members use other financial institutions when they need to borrow funds?
R3: What are the members’ attitudes and beliefs about the proficiency of credit union employees?
vars n mean sd median trimmed mad min max range skew kurtosis se
X1 1 128 4.21 0.59 4 4.25 0.74 2.75 5 2.25 -0.32 -0.69 0.05
data |>
ggplot(aes(at_emp)) +
geom_histogram(binwidth = 0.5, color = "black", fill = "lightblue") +
geom_vline(aes(xintercept = mean(at_emp, na.rm = TRUE)),
color = "red", linetype = "dashed", size = 1) +
geom_text(aes(x = mean(at_emp, na.rm = TRUE), y = 30,
label = paste0("Mean = ", round(mean(at_emp), 2))),
color = "red", angle = 90, vjust = -0.5, hjust = 2.2) +
labs(title = "Histogram of Employee Proficiencies with Mean Line",
x = "Employee Prociency",
y = "Count") +
scale_x_continuous(expand = c(0,0), limits = c(0, NA))
One Sample t-test
data: at_emp
t = 3.9063, df = 127, p-value = 0.0001515
alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 4
95 percent confidence interval:
4.101192 4.308965
sample estimates:
mean of x
4.205078
Summary insights about R3
Participants perceived Employee proficiency is 4.21 on average out of 5.0 and is greater than 4.0 (“Agree”)
R4: Are there any perceived differences on (a) attitude towards employee proficiencies, (b) awareness of services, and (c) operational effectiveness between members who live in the area of the firm’s headquarters and members who live elsewhere?
- Constructs and roles:
- Member residence: IV
- Attitudes toward employee proficiency: DV
- Operationalization:
- q38
- at_emp
- Scale:
- Nominal scale:
- interval scale: 1-5 point, Likert-type scale
- Statistics:
- Descriptive statistics, followed by independent samples t-test
data |>
mutate(q38 = haven::as_factor(q38)) |>
group_by(q38) |>
summarize(mean = mean(at_emp, na.rm = TRUE)) |>
ggplot(aes(q38, mean, fill = q38)) +
geom_col() +
labs(x = "Live in HQ Area",
y = "Attitudes toward Employee Proficiency",
title = "Does Employee Proficiency differ by where customers live?") +
theme(legend.position = "none")# check for equal variance
library(car)
data |>
mutate(q38 = haven::as_factor(q38)) |>
leveneTest(at_emp ~ q38, data = _)Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variance (center = median)
Df F value Pr(>F)
group 1 0.041 0.8399
126
F test to compare two variances
data: at_emp by q38
F = 0.89996, num df = 56, denom df = 70, p-value = 0.6864
alternative hypothesis: true ratio of variances is not equal to 1
95 percent confidence interval:
0.548864 1.496643
sample estimates:
ratio of variances
0.8999608
Two Sample t-test
data: at_emp by q38
t = 1.2941, df = 126, p-value = 0.198
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group 1 and group 2 is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.0721542 0.3448253
sample estimates:
mean in group 1 mean in group 2
4.280702 4.144366
Summary insights about H4a
The group mean value on employee proficiency for customers who live in HQ and those who live elsewhere are not statistically different.
Thus, we conclude that the location of customer residence is not associated with their perception of CU employee proficiency.
- Constructs and roles:
- Member residence: IV
- service awareness: DV
- Operationalization:
- q38
- q13r - q26r
- Scale:
- Nominal scale:
- Ordianal scale
- Statistics:
- Two-way cross-tab, followed by Chi-square independence test
data <- data |>
mutate(q13r = haven::as_factor(q13r),
q38 = haven::as_factor(q38))
# cross-tabulation: count
table(data$q13r, data$q38)
yes no
Unaware 34 49
Aware but Have Not Used 16 16
Aware and Have Used 7 6
yes no
Unaware 59.649123 69.014085
Aware but Have Not Used 28.070175 22.535211
Aware and Have Used 12.280702 8.450704
Pearson's Chi-squared test
data: table(data$q13r, data$q38)
X-squared = 1.2717, df = 2, p-value = 0.5295
table(data$q38, data$q13r) |>
mosaicplot(main = "Awareness of Regular share account by Residence",
color = TRUE, las = 1 )data <- data |>
mutate(q14r = haven::as_factor(q14r))
# cross-tabulation: count
table(data$q14r, data$q38)
yes no
Unaware 22 24
Aware but Have Not Used 31 39
Aware and Have Used 4 8
yes no
Unaware 38.596491 33.802817
Aware but Have Not Used 54.385965 54.929577
Aware and Have Used 7.017544 11.267606
Pearson's Chi-squared test
data: table(data$q14r, data$q38)
X-squared = 0.81305, df = 2, p-value = 0.666
table(data$q38, data$q14r) |>
mosaicplot(main = "Awareness of Special Sub accounts by Residence",
color = TRUE, las = 1 )data <- data |>
mutate(q15r = haven::as_factor(q15r))
# cross-tabulation: count
table(data$q15r, data$q38)
yes no
Unaware 17 25
Aware but Have Not Used 35 40
Aware and Have Used 5 6
yes no
Unaware 29.824561 35.211268
Aware but Have Not Used 61.403509 56.338028
Aware and Have Used 8.771930 8.450704
Pearson's Chi-squared test
data: table(data$q15r, data$q38)
X-squared = 0.42185, df = 2, p-value = 0.8098
table(data$q38, data$q15r) |>
mosaicplot(main = "Awareness of Christmas club account by Residence",
color = TRUE, las = 1 )data <- data |>
mutate(q13r = haven::as_factor(q13r),
q14r = haven::as_factor(q14r),
q15r = haven::as_factor(q15r),
q16r = haven::as_factor(q16r),
q17r = haven::as_factor(q17r),
q18r = haven::as_factor(q18r),
q19r = haven::as_factor(q19r),
q20r = haven::as_factor(q20r),
q21r = haven::as_factor(q21r),
q22r = haven::as_factor(q22r),
q23r = haven::as_factor(q23r),
q24r = haven::as_factor(q24r),
q25r = haven::as_factor(q25r),
q26r = haven::as_factor(q26r)
)- Constructs and roles:
- Member residence: IV
- operatoinal effectiveness: DV
- Operationalization:
- q38
- q9r, q10r,
- q11-q12r,
- q31-q34,
- q37r
- Scale:
- Nominal scale
- interval scales
- Nominal
- interval
- interval
- Statistics: D
- Descriptive statistics, followed by
- 2-groups t-test
- Ch-square independence test
- 2-groups t-test
- 2-groups t-test
R5: How well are the members aware of the services offered by the credit union?
Chi-squared test for given probabilities
data: table(data$q13r)
X-squared = 61.422, df = 2, p-value = 4.596e-14
# A tibble: 1,792 × 2
services awareness
<chr> <fct>
1 q13r Aware and Have Used
2 q14r Aware but Have Not Used
3 q15r Aware but Have Not Used
4 q16r Aware but Have Not Used
5 q17r Aware but Have Not Used
6 q18r Aware but Have Not Used
7 q19r Aware and Have Used
8 q20r Aware and Have Used
9 q21r Aware but Have Not Used
10 q22r Aware but Have Not Used
# ℹ 1,782 more rows
# Expected proportions (e.g., equal distribution across levels)
exp_p <- c(`Unaware` = 1/3,
`Aware but Have Not Used` = 1/3,
`Aware and Have Used` = 1/3)
# Perform chi-square goodness of fit for each product
awareness_long |>
group_by(services) |>
count(awareness) |>
complete(awareness = names(exp_p), fill = list(n = 0)) |> # tidyr
group_by(services) |>
summarise(
chisq_test = list(chisq.test(
x = n,
p = exp_p[levels(factor(awareness))]
))
) |>
mutate(tidy_results = map(chisq_test, broom::tidy)) |>
unnest(tidy_results)# A tibble: 14 × 6
services chisq_test statistic p.value parameter method
<chr> <list> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <chr>
1 q13r <htest> 61.4 4.60e-14 2 Chi-squared test for given …
2 q14r <htest> 39.8 2.26e- 9 2 Chi-squared test for given …
3 q15r <htest> 48.0 3.75e-11 2 Chi-squared test for given …
4 q16r <htest> 16.4 2.72e- 4 2 Chi-squared test for given …
5 q17r <htest> 26.9 1.43e- 6 2 Chi-squared test for given …
6 q18r <htest> 135. 6.07e-30 2 Chi-squared test for given …
7 q19r <htest> 116. 7.16e-26 2 Chi-squared test for given …
8 q20r <htest> 124. 1.30e-27 2 Chi-squared test for given …
9 q21r <htest> 62.4 2.88e-14 2 Chi-squared test for given …
10 q22r <htest> 56.9 4.36e-13 2 Chi-squared test for given …
11 q23r <htest> 31.2 1.65e- 7 2 Chi-squared test for given …
12 q24r <htest> 59.8 1.02e-13 2 Chi-squared test for given …
13 q25r <htest> 64.6 9.56e-15 2 Chi-squared test for given …
14 q26r <htest> 76 3.14e-17 2 Chi-squared test for given …
R6: What are the members’ attitudes and beliefs about how effectively the credit union is operated?
H1: Members’ awareness of the regular share accounts will influence their opinions on the adequacy of financial services in meeting members’ needs.
H2: Members will not be different in their opinion on CU’s loan rate (Q8r) and the degree to which they agree that CU’s loan rate is lower than competitors (Q30).
H3a: There will be interaction effect between the current loan use and location of residence on adequacy of current financial services such that in headquarter area, members who have a loan will agree, more than those who don’t have, that financial services meet the members’ needs, while in outside headquarter area, loan status doesn’t influence adequacy of financial services in meeting member needs.
H3b: Test H2a controlling for the impact of attitudes toward employee proficiency.
Sample Presentation for Case 31 Project